A unanimous panel of Court of Appeals judges REJECTED Kari Lake's Election Contest appeal this afternoon.
They summarized their reasons neatly in the opening paragraph of the 12-page Opinion (below):
"... her request for relief fails because the evidence presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the election results."
The opinion, authored by Chief Judge Kent Cattani, and joined by Peter Swann and Maria Elena Cruz, separately addresses the two counts which were the subject of the two-day trial, the printer/tabulator claim and the chain of custody issues.
Cattani reviewed Lake's allegations and summarized them as "sheer speculation".
"Lake’s claim thus boils down to a suggestion that election-day issues led to long lines at vote centers, which frustrated and discouraged voters, which allegedly resulted in a substantial number of predominately Lake voters not voting. But Lake’s only purported evidence that these issues had any potential effect on election results was, quite simply, sheer speculation."
About chain of custody, Cattani wrote:
" Regarding ostensibly missing chain-of-custody documentation, Lake’s evidence was either misdirected (e.g., a witness who reported not receiving certain forms in response to a public records request but who also confirmed that she “know[s] they exist”) or was provided by individuals who were not present or could not see the relevant area. For their part, Maricopa County elections officials confirmed the existence of chain-of-custody forms documenting how election-day early ballot packets are processed from vote center to tabulation. The court had ample basis to conclude that Lake failed to prove improper chain-of-custody documentation."
Lake has renewed her previous vows to continue appealing the negative results. She tweeted this afternoon that her attorneys will bring this to the Arizona Supreme Court immediately; the Supreme Court has the discretion in whether or not to hear the appeal.
The state's highest court twice rejected clumsy attempts to get them to consider it instead of the intermediate Court of Appeals. However, that is not necessarily indicative of their views on the merits - or, lack thereof - of Lake's case.
The Court of Appeals did not levy any sanctions today - Hobbs' attorneys perfunctorily asked. Appeals courts are less likely to award sanctions. The $30,000+ in witness fees awarded by the Superior Court still stands.
I have to admit I had some pleasure reading the section in the opinion on Lake's failed claim on signature matching. The court upheld Judge Thompson's dismissal of the claim on laches because Lake should have challenged the procedure before the election and not after she lost. Ryan Heath blocked me on Twitter for pointing out that Judge Thompson ruled correctly in dismissing this claim.
ReplyDelete